Smolen, Jr. v. Wesley et al

Filing 190

ORDER denying as moot 173 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 175 Motion in Limine. The Court held an in-person conference on July 25, 2022. Counsel for all parties appeared. As explained more fully on the record during the appearance, the Co urt directs as follows: 1. With respect to Plaintiffs motions in limine (Doc. 173; Doc. 174; Doc. 182): a. The motion to preclude Plaintiffs criminal history is, based upon the parties' agreement, denied as moot. In accordance with the parties ' agreement, information given to the jury will be limited to the fact that Plaintiff was previously convicted of a felony and sentenced to a term of more than one year in prison. No other information will be permitted. b. The motion to preclud e testimony from Edward Burnett is denied. Mr. Burnett may testify as a fact witness, only. c. The motion to preclude evidence concerning Plaintiff's disciplinary history is denied without prejudice to renew in context during trial. d. The moti on to preclude evidence concerning Plaintiff's litigation history is denied without prejudice to renew in context during trial. 2. As for Defendants' motions in limine (Doc. 175; Doc. 176; Doc. 177; Doc. 181): a. The motion to admit Plaint iff's criminal history is, based upon the parties'agreement, denied as moot (see supra 1(a)). b. The motion to preclude evidence concerning Plaintiff's permanent vision and hearing loss is, given Plaintiffs representations, denied as m oot. Plaintiff may testify as to the natural and obvious injuries resulting from the incidents along with garden variety emotional damages. c. The motion to preclude certain documents is denied without prejudice to renew in context during trial. d . The motion to preclude evidence concerning Defendants' litigation history is denied without prejudice to renew in context during trial. 3. Defendants, in the interest of efficiency and as stated on their record, waive any objection under Fed eral Rules of Evidence 801 and 802 as to documents they produced. 4. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the Court's directives and instructions regarding changes to the Amended Proposed Joint Pretrial Order (Doc. 189) and file, by Aug ust 5, 2022, a Second Amended Proposed Joint Pretrial Order. 5. The following questions in the parties Proposed Voir Dire (Doc. 172) are denied: I(2); II(7); III(1), (4)-(5), (12); VI(3), (5); VI(A)(2), (B)(2)-(3), (C)(2). The remaining questions a re granted or granted in substance. 6. The parties shall review the Proposed Voir Dire Form provided by the Court during the conference and file, by 5:00 p.m. on July 29, 2022, a joint letter informing the Court as to any objections. 7. Binders and flashdrives containing exhibits shall be produced to the Court by October 3, 2022. 8. The Final Pretrial Conference shall proceed at 11:00 a.m. in person, in Courtroom 520 of the White Plains Courthouse, on October 11, 2022. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion sequences pending at Doc. 173 and Doc. 175. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 7/25/2022) (jca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SAMUEL J. SMOLEN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
-against-

ORDER
16-CV-02417 (PMH)

C.O. M. WESLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge:
The Court held an in-person conference on July 25, 2022. Counsel for all parties appeared.
As explained more fully on the record during the appearance, the Court directs as follows:
1. With respect to Plaintiff’s motions in limine (Doc. 173; Doc. 174; Doc. 182):
a. The motion to preclude Plaintiff’s criminal history is, based upon the parties’
agreement, denied as moot. In accordance with the parties’ agreement,
information given to the jury will be limited to the fact that Plaintiff was
previously convicted of a felony and sentenced to a term of more than one year
in prison. No other information will be permitted.
b. The motion to preclude testimony from Edward Burnett is denied. Mr. Burnett
may testify as a fact witness, only.
c. The motion to preclude evidence concerning Plaintiff’s disciplinary history is
denied without prejudice to renew in context during trial.
d. The motion to preclude evidence concerning Plaintiff’s litigation history is
denied without prejudice to renew in context during trial.
2. As for Defendants’ motions in limine (Doc. 175; Doc. 176; Doc. 177; Doc. 181):
a. The motion to admit Plaintiff’s criminal history is, based upon the parties’
agreement, denied as moot (see supra 1(a)).
b. The motion to preclude evidence concerning Plaintiff’s permanent vision and
hearing loss is, given Plaintiff’s representations, denied as moot. Plaintiff may
testify as to the natural and obvious injuries resulting from the incidents along
with garden variety emotional damages.

c. The motion to preclude certain documents is denied without prejudice to
renew in context during trial.
d. The motion to preclude evidence concerning Defendants’ litigation history is
denied without prejudice to renew in context during trial.
3. Defendants, in the interest of efficiency and as stated on their record, waive any
objection under Federal Rules of Evidence 801 and 802 as to documents they produced.
4. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the Court’s directives and instructions
regarding changes to the Amended Proposed Joint Pretrial Order (Doc. 189) and file,
by August 5, 2022, a Second Amended Proposed Joint Pretrial Order.
5. The following questions in the parties’ Proposed Voir Dire (Doc. 172) are denied: I(2);
II(7); III(1), (4)-(5), (12); VI(3), (5); VI(A)(2), (B)(2)-(3), (C)(2). The remaining
questions are granted or granted in substance.
6. The parties shall review the Proposed Voir Dire Form provided by the Court during the
conference and file, by 5:00 p.m. on July 29, 2022, a joint letter informing the Court
as to any objections.
7. Binders and flashdrives containing exhibits shall be produced to the Court by October
3, 2022.
8. The Final Pretrial Conference shall proceed at 11:00 a.m. in person, in Courtroom 520
of the White Plains Courthouse, on October 11, 2022.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion sequences pending
at Doc. 173 and Doc. 175.
SO ORDERED:
Dated:

White Plains, New York
July 25, 2022
PHILIP
ILIP M
M. HALPER
HALPERN
United States District Judge